New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
check for match against debian archive #49
Comments
|
Wouldn't we get this "for free" once we simply push the archive ones to buildinfo.debian.net? |
We could manually compare them, but the idea is to have a way to Currently, there's no tracking in buildinfo.debian.net of anything I suppose at import time, you could flag those .buildinfo files in The .buildinfo files that produced matching binary packages in the Maybe some additional service would be a more appropriate place to |
|
Tthe |
Sure, if you have a set of known buildd keys and ways of keeping them It wouldn't catch binary uploads from developers, which is still |
|
wfm |
Wild off-the-top-of-my head wishlist item here:
buildinfo.debian.net appears to check if there are buildinfo files that successfully reproduced the binaries:
https://buildinfo.debian.net/sources/u-boot/2018.07+dfsg-1
It would be interesting if it could compare the produced hashes against the in-archive packages, and see which .buildinfo files match, and ideally expose matching in-archive .deb with some api, so someone could ask to explicitly rebuild against the archive by querying buildinfo.debian.net.
I'm sure this requires a fair amount of additional parsing; e.g. downloading all the Packages files for target architectures on a regular basis, and then updating the whole database.
Maybe it's infeasible, or the wrong place to do this sort of thing.
The main advantage to this approach is it would allow to retroactively provide a database of .buildinfo files that match the in-archive files once we get around to publicly publishing the .buildinfo files that are currently uploaded to the official Debian archive... and also .buildinfo files that happened to match the archive from our test infrastructure.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: